Options

Most Effective Post War Chancellor of the Exchequer

245

Comments

  • Options
    MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Far too early to judge Osborne. I voted for Lawson
  • Options
    ZaphodskiZaphodski Posts: 4,687
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phil 2804 wrote: »
    Britain had its longest ever unbroken run of economic growth while Brown was at No. 11 and unemployment was sustained at its lowest levels since the mid 1970s. Even George and Dave were fans at one point, they even promised to match Brown's spending plans in early 2007. :D

    Yes it all ended in tears but all economic booms do, look at what happened after the Lawson and Barber booms.

    Nothing to do with the cycle of outgoing Tory governments handing over a repaired economy for the next Labour government to wreck it again...? :o
  • Options
    LateralthinkingLateralthinking Posts: 8,027
    Forum Member
    In the absence of Cripps, I have voted for Dalton.

    Their approaches differed. Dalton could be challenged on the demand side and Cripps for being variable and ending with greater austerity. But I think to have to get the country through the post war years was in a different league to any problems other Chancellors had to face and the fact that so much was achieved was a miracle.
  • Options
    GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    In the absence of Cripps, I have voted for Dalton.

    I wanna vote for Cripps!

    Where is he? Fix! Fix! :D
  • Options
    LateralthinkingLateralthinking Posts: 8,027
    Forum Member
    I wanna vote for Cripps!

    Where is he? Fix! Fix! :D

    It's a total stitch-up. :D
  • Options
    Tall PaulTall Paul Posts: 8,786
    Forum Member
    Definitely Gordon brown, no contest. :D
  • Options
    allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tall Paul wrote: »
    Definitely Gordon brown, no contest. :D

    Only because he averted boom and bust......guffaw!
  • Options
    AndyCopenAndyCopen Posts: 2,213
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allaorta wrote: »
    Only because he averted boom and bust......guffaw!

    No he abolished it.
  • Options
    Phil 2804Phil 2804 Posts: 21,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Zaphodski wrote: »
    Nothing to do with the cycle of outgoing Tory governments handing over a repaired economy for the next Labour government to wreck it again...? :o

    So that's what Heath handed over in 1974 was it a repaired economy? Except of course he didn't, Heath handed over an economy in deep recession, with runaway inflation, rising unemployment and of course in the midst of the infamous three day week, and were Labour to blame for the recession of 1991 where unemployment hit 3 million and Government borrowing reached 9% of GDP?

    I'd like to point out to you that since the 1970s the UK economy has spent more than twice as long in recession with the Tories in power as it has when Labour have been in power and since 1980 there hasn't been a single day when a Tory Government presided over unemployment below 2 million.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allaorta wrote: »
    Only because he averted boom and bust......guffaw!



    There were no recessions in the UK between 1997 and 2008 so Brown did manage to avert boom and bust for almost the whole time Labour where in Government, unlike the Tory government who had two recessions while they were in Government, one in the 1980's and another in the 1990's.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    out of 32 votes :D

    So how many votes do you think there should be before a poll can be taken seriously ?
  • Options
    flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    So how many votes do you think there should be before a poll can be taken seriously ?

    It depends how many options there are and how carefully the sample is chosen.

    The margin of error goes with the inverse square root of the sample size. There's probably half a dozen competitors for the poll you are talking about so for a 10% margin of error you'd be looking at an un biased sample size of about 1000.

    But the un biased bit is important.
  • Options
    rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's almost impossible to say who was the better chancellor because each and everyone had their own unique circumstances to deal with be they wars, changing markets/competition, growing/aging populations, advancement in technologies, revenue streams (we didn't always have north sea oil at our disposal), environmental targets, EU membership, worldwide recessions..... the list goes on and on and on.

    Might as well ask if Bobby Charlton is better than Wayne Rooney.

    Fun, but ultimately a useless debate.
  • Options
    sangrealsangreal Posts: 20,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I still want to know why Cripps is missing from the list.

    Yes, a very valid question....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Cripps
    Sir Richard Stafford Cripps FRS (24 April 1889 – 21 April 1952) was a British Labour politician of the first half of the 20th century. During World War II he served in a number of positions in the wartime coalition..... After the war he served in the Attlee Ministry, firstly as President of the Board of Trade and between 1947 and 1950 as Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the latter position, Cripps was responsible for laying the foundations of Britain’s post-war economic prosperity, and was, according to historian Kenneth O. Morgan, “the real architect of the rapidly improving economic picture and growing affluence from 1952 onwards.”
  • Options
    flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    sangreal wrote: »
    Yes, a very valid question....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Cripps

    If I may she'd some light on it. I copied and pasted the list from wikipedia. He either wasn't on it or I made a mistake.
  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Phil 2804 wrote: »
    So that's what Heath handed over in 1974 was it a repaired economy? Except of course he didn't, Heath handed over an economy in deep recession, with runaway inflation, rising unemployment and of course in the midst of the infamous three day week, and were Labour to blame for the recession of 1991 where unemployment hit 3 million and Government borrowing reached 9% of GDP?

    And, lest we forget, both inflation and mortgage rates reached double digits.
  • Options
    GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    flagpole wrote: »
    If I may she'd some light on it. I copied and pasted the list from wikipedia. He either wasn't on it or I made a mistake.

    Well, take it that he has my vote.
  • Options
    LateralthinkingLateralthinking Posts: 8,027
    Forum Member
    I am gob smacked that 36 votes of the 62 have gone to the last three - and find it very alarming.
  • Options
    flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    I am gob smacked that 36 votes of the 62 have gone to the last three - and find it very alarming.

    well every year my local radio station around christmas play the top 100, or possibly 1000 singles as voted for by listeners.

    in 2010 it was not Bohemian Rhapsody, Whiter Shade of Pale, Bridge Over Troubled Water etc. it was Baby by Justin Bieber.

    i think that is the phenomenon.

    John Major is interesting. i thought he was a good chancellor. but i guess the grey ones slip through the cracks.
  • Options
    jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've gone for Derick Heathcoat-Amory as he had his yacht brought up the Thames to take him away after the budget. He must have put up the duty a fair bit. :D

    I think Brown could well win polls for the worst and the best chancellor.
  • Options
    Phil 2804Phil 2804 Posts: 21,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am gob smacked that 36 votes of the 62 have gone to the last three - and find it very alarming.

    I find it interesting that the two most popular are the two who stoked enormous economic booms based on debt and mortgage lending that led to equally big busts and left the public finances in pretty poor state. As case that we all like to remember the party but not the horrendous hangover afterwards.
  • Options
    FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am gob smacked that 36 votes of the 62 have gone to the last three - and find it very alarming.

    It's pretty typical of people to vote for something recent or at least that they have experienced themselves. I'm sure a lot of casual followers of politics haven't heard of most of those chancellors.
  • Options
    OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As pointless polls go,....
    No Tory voter will vote for a Labour chancellor, and vice versa,
    Might as well ask which party do you like best Labour or Conservative?
  • Options
    Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,344
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    Far too early to judge Osborne. I voted for Lawson

    Ah the man that introduced a tax on company pension scheme surpluses then.

    It was after that my old company went from a final salary sheme to a inferior one,as in the good times it was not worth generating surpluses to cover the bad times.>:(

    Kenneth Clarke for me he spoke in a language i could at least understand.
  • Options
    flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    As pointless polls go,....
    No Tory voter will vote for a Labour chancellor, and vice versa,
    Might as well ask which party do you like best Labour or Conservative?

    You know that there have been more than one labour or conservative Chancellors? And not everyone has only ever voted for one party?

    Winston Churchill was voted greatest Briton.
Sign In or Register to comment.